not completely - the bigger picture is driven politically - re: what areas we're willing to concede on, what we want etc..
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
not completely - the bigger picture is driven politically - re: what areas we're willing to concede on, what we want etc..
Actually anyone can be killed without judicial process if they present a clear risk of harm to others.
You trying to tell me Osama bin Laden was just a misunderstood tree hugging love bug?
Hang on - I thought you said it was to bring porn available in the UK via the internet into alignment with Porn available every other way in the UK regulated by the BBFC? That's not May personally inflicting unilaterally a blanket ban on porn, it's saying (whether you agree with it or not is another point) that porn via the internet should be subject tot he same standards as every other method of delivering porn based on an independant organisation.
I may not agree with the BBFCs choice of what is and is not acceptable based on personal preference but that is completely different to your initial post of "May will ban all porn in the UK".
Dropping the porn thing you said May would legislate so only "plain text" communications would be possible, a UK only internet and censorship/deletion of anything the government disagrees with without oversight?
I'm afraid that although open minded your post just strikes me a political scare mongering although if you can help with some direct, genuine first hand sources for the above rather than hyperbole and opinion I'm as ready as the next person to be outraged and head for the closest rope and pitch fork...
Last edited:
Who of us knows anything about Bin Laden beyond what was reported in the media?
In this country we have trial by jury, not trial by media.
You assuming his guilt is exactly the point. Guilt can only be established by trial and presented evidence. Media reporting does not constitute proof.
LOL so I guess we'll never know who was responsible for the Manchester bombing because the suicide bomber we all suspect will never have a jury trial?
At what point do we taken his admission as proof of guilt?
I suppose we could say that was fake etc, but where do we draw the line
What I take exception too is the "no deal is better than a bad deal" mantra.
I bought my TV from Comet during a sale, but as it was a great TV it was only 5% off, I managed to talk the manager into throwing in the five year warranty for free (which outlived Comet lol) but he wouldn't budge from 5% off, so I got it for 5% off, I didn't go across the road to Curries and buy it for 0% off because "no deal is better than a bad deal", because I'm not an idiot.
I bought my TV from Comet during a sale, but as it was a great TV it was only 5% off, I managed to talk the manager into throwing in the five year warranty for free (which outlived Comet lol) but he wouldn't budge from 5% off, so I got it for 5% off, I didn't go across the road to Curries and buy it for 0% off because "no deal is better than a bad deal", because I'm not an idiot.
Think it's quite well documented. I believe anyone who poses a perceived threat to responding armed services/ public can be killed without trial.
This goes for terrorists/ criminals/ Joe Bloggs acting in such a way that loss of life could be quite probable, especially towards Police/ SWAT/ FBI/ CO19/ SAS/ etc.
I think Bin Laded probably quite easily fell into the 'perceived threat' category...
Should all known drug dealers be shot on site then as the vast majority own firearms and tend to be violent individuals.
What's the point in locking any terrorist up if it's far easier to just kill them without trial. Bin Laden could quite easily have been captured without special forces being harmed in the process, the way the US went about it was typical of their approach to warfare though.
The question was nearly as pointless as the hypothetical drone strike one anyway, Paxman had very limited time and asked some atrocious questions that aren't really relevant to this upcoming election and their main manifesto points.
This is some quantum leap. If said drug dealers brandish said weapon then chances are yes, they should be shot.
However I'm not sure where you get your info from... most drug dealers definitely do not own firearms.
Can I ask how you would have gone about it?
Paxman asked some really daft questions; one really stupid question stood out for me (I tuned in late).
To Corbyn: "What is the most you will give to the EU in any deal? In £billions?"
Corbyn should have flatly told him that, when negotiating a price for something, you don't start by truthfully telling the seller how much you're prepared to pay. To give any answer at all would be inappropriate.
So I can't understand why Paxman kept asking him over and over, a question that it should have been obvious was unanswerable? Corbyn should have flat up told him how stupid the question was, I think.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Not really, justice has nothing to do with having a court system and "due process". These are ways of ensuring justice is served, but not the only route to justice.
How about if the only "deal" Comet (or Currys) would give you was double the price of other options, or, he'd give you 10% off but the TV only came with 1 week warranty as opposed to 5 years so you decide on other options/stick with the TV you have - would that then mean "no deal is better than a bad deal"?
Maybe he was waiting for Corbyn to tell him that? The fact that Corbyn couldn't respond with a satisfactory answer should be very worrying.
It's impossible to say exactly how much effort the US put into capturing Bin Laden alive but it certainly wasn't an easy mission for the special forces. They were in a built-up area and in a county where they weren't supposed to be flying mission in. The mission could easily have ended in disaster.
Since you're talking in general terms I will also.
Another problem is that "justice" is relative to the observer, until *all* the facts are established. (I'm not saying this is appropriate to Bin Laden, just hypothetically).
Another point of an investigation and a trial is so that every single pertinent fact can be presented, and a verdict can be given based on the full story (not always perfect).
Whether you think justice has been done can depend on your viewpoint, and whether or not you know the full story. It's easy to make up contrived examples but I won't.
Entitled to your opinion.
If you think £40 a month for £200k WOL cover with the option of a yearly RPI increase, which can be declined up to 3 times is "horribly expensive" then that's your view. You don't HAVE to increase the cover cost, just that the cover will stop increasing if you decline the RPI increase.
Why else do you think IFAs use them as IHT planning tools? Same goes for protection of your estate value.
- Status